In a land­mark first, Chi­nese sci­en­tist claims birth of ge­net­i­cal­ly mod­i­fied ba­bies — and all hell breaks loose

A Chi­nese re­searcher is claim­ing that he cre­at­ed the first-ever ge­net­i­cal­ly edit­ed ba­bies us­ing CRISPR/Cas9 tools that have now be­come a com­mon fea­ture in labs around the world. And the news trig­gered a tem­pest in sci­en­tif­ic cir­cles the world over as re­searchers who have been us­ing gene-edit­ing tech to re­fine plants and forge new ther­a­pies try to puz­zle out the stun­ning —if true — de­vel­op­ment fea­tured on YouTube.

Sev­er­al ex­perts — in­clud­ing co-in­ven­tor Feng Zhang — crit­i­cized the ex­per­i­ment, rais­ing po­ten­tial safe­ty is­sues that could arise as a re­sult of the ge­net­ic tin­ker­ing. And Rice Uni­ver­si­ty, where a pro­fes­sor was re­port­ed­ly in­volved, is in­ves­ti­gat­ing.

The sci­en­tist who claimed cred­it for the work, though, of­fered a sun­ny per­spec­tive on YouTube.

“Two beau­ti­ful Chi­nese girls named Lu­lu and Nana came cry­ing in­to the world as healthy as any oth­er ba­bies a few weeks ago,” said Shen­zhen-based re­searcher Jiankui He in the YouTube video and WeChat post. But this was no av­er­age birth. The re­searcher’s un­ver­i­fied claim is that the twins’ em­bryos have been ge­net­i­cal­ly en­gi­neered with CRISPR to de­com­mis­sion CCR5, a gene used by HIV as a back door in­to a cell.

Ahead of an in­ter­na­tion­al con­fer­ence on gene edit­ing ex­pect­ed to com­mence on Tues­day in Hong Kong, He said he had al­tered em­bryos for sev­en cou­ples dur­ing fer­til­i­ty treat­ments, with one preg­nan­cy re­sult­ing thus far. But the le­git­i­ma­cy of the project is be­ing in­ves­ti­gat­ed. The South­ern Uni­ver­si­ty of Sci­ence and Tech­nol­o­gy in Shen­zhen, with which He is af­fil­i­at­ed, is­sued a state­ment say­ing it was “deeply shocked” and un­aware of his re­search project which they con­sid­er a “se­ri­ous vi­o­la­tion of aca­d­e­m­ic ethics and stan­dards.” The uni­ver­si­ty added He has been on leave with­out pay since Feb­ru­ary.

He has claimed his aim was not to cure or pre­vent an in­her­it­ed dis­ease, but to con­fer a trait that is nat­u­ral­ly com­mon in parts of North­ern Eu­rope — an abil­i­ty to re­sist an HIV in­fec­tion from the AIDS virus. But the choice to ed­it this CCR5 gene, the block­ade of which may al­so be ef­fec­tive in thwart­ing cholera and small­pox, im­me­di­ate­ly trig­gered an on­line up­roar over the use of CRISPR to al­ter DNA in a way that could be passed down for gen­er­a­tions to come.

MIT Tech­nol­o­gy Re­view’s An­to­nio Re­gal­a­do point­ed out this could be par­tic­u­lar­ly con­tro­ver­sial be­cause there are eas­i­er and cheap­er ways to pre­vent HIV in­fec­tion, or in­deed sup­press it. Edit­ing em­bryos dur­ing IVF will al­so be ex­pen­sive and in­volve tech­nol­o­gy out of reach for poor­er pock­ets of the world where HIV is ubiq­ui­tous.

Some are al­so sug­gest­ing the sto­ry rais­es oth­er thorny ques­tions. Im­pe­r­i­al Col­lege in­ves­ti­ga­tor Tom El­lis not­ed:

Al­though there is sci­en­tif­ic con­sen­sus that gene edit­ing should not be em­ployed to make “de­sign­er ba­bies” en­dowed with en­hanced phys­i­cal fea­tures or in­tel­lec­tu­al traits, the ju­ry is out on to what de­gree sci­ence should in­ter­fere with na­ture to pre­vent, treat or cure dis­ease.

In ad­di­tion to Chi­na, lab­o­ra­to­ry re­search is un­der­way in Swe­den and the UK, in­ves­ti­gat­ing the po­ten­tial of gene-edit­ing in hu­man em­bryos. But in the Unit­ed States it’s a po­lit­i­cal­ly charged propo­si­tion that has won the nar­row en­dorse­ment of the Na­tion­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences, which last year rec­om­mend­ed that germ-line mod­i­fi­ca­tion of hu­mans was jus­ti­fied in some cir­cum­stances, such as pre­vent­ing the birth of chil­dren with se­ri­ous dis­eases. This rec­om­men­da­tion will like­ly fall on deaf ears, as sec­tions of the pub­lic ve­he­ment­ly op­pose such in­ter­fer­ence on re­li­gious grounds. In fact such mod­i­fi­ca­tions are prac­ti­cal­ly out of the ques­tion — with laws in place pro­hibit­ing the FDA from even con­sid­er­ing pro­pos­als to cre­ate ge­net­i­cal­ly-edit­ed off­spring.

The promise of CRISPR/Cas9 edit­ing has long been her­ald­ed. How­ev­er, ex­per­i­men­ta­tion with the pro­ce­dure has yield­ed sig­nif­i­cant safe­ty con­cerns. Da­ta pre­sent­ed ear­li­er this year sug­gest that the tool, which is es­sen­tial­ly a pair of mol­e­c­u­lar scis­sors, may in­ad­ver­tent­ly in­crease can­cer risk in some cells, or in­tro­duce ac­ci­den­tal mu­ta­tions — is­sues that could ham­per the de­vel­op­ment of gene-edit­ing ther­a­pies cham­pi­oned by com­pa­nies such as CRISPR Ther­a­peu­tics $CR­SP, Ed­i­tas Med­i­cine $ED­IT and In­tel­lia Ther­a­peu­tics $NT­LA.

“The ge­net­ic edit­ing of a speck-size hu­man em­bryo car­ries sig­nif­i­cant risks, in­clud­ing the risks of in­tro­duc­ing un­want­ed mu­ta­tions or yield­ing a ba­by whose body is com­posed of some edit­ed and some unedit­ed cells. Da­ta on the Chi­nese tri­al site in­di­cate that one of the fe­tus­es is a ‘mo­sa­ic’ of cells that had been edit­ed in dif­fer­ent ways,” Re­gal­a­do un­der­scored in his ar­ti­cle.

He’s project in­volved cou­ples in which the men had HIV but the women did not, and the goal was to pre­vent their chil­dren from suf­fer­ing the same fate.

Ac­cord­ing to the AP re­port, He said that in one twin, both copies of the in­tend­ed gene had been al­tered, while in the oth­er twin, just one copy had been dis­abled — and that there was no ev­i­dence of harm to any oth­er genes. Hu­mans with one copy of the gene can still be in­fect­ed with HIV.

The edit­ing oc­curred dur­ing IVF — first, the sperm was sep­a­rat­ed from the se­men where HIV is known to linger. Then, a sin­gle sperm was placed in­to a soli­tary egg to cre­ate an em­bryo when the gene-edit­ing tool was em­ployed. Cou­ples re­cruit­ed to the study were giv­en free fer­til­i­ty treat­ment in re­turn for their par­tic­i­pa­tion and of­fered the choice to use ei­ther edit­ed or non-edit­ed em­bryos for preg­nan­cy at­tempts. Over­all, 16 of 22 em­bryos were edit­ed, and 11 em­bryos were used in 6 im­plant at­tempts be­fore the twin preg­nan­cy was re­al­ized, He told the AP.

He, who is al­so a founder of a DNA se­quenc­ing com­pa­ny Di­rect Ge­nomics, ob­tained in­formed con­sent from par­tic­i­pants call­ing the study an “AIDS vac­cine de­vel­op­ment project.” How­ev­er, in his ap­pli­ca­tion form seek­ing eth­i­cal ap­proval, he dubbed it a CCR5 gene edit­ing project.

Press re­ports tied his work to Rice Uni­ver­si­ty’s Michael Deem, who now will have to an­swer for what, ex­act­ly, they did. Rice Uni­ver­si­ty was quick to launch its own probe. They not­ed:

Re­cent press re­ports de­scribe a case of ge­nom­ic edit­ing of hu­man em­bryos in Chi­na. These re­ports in­clude a de­scrip­tion of in­volve­ment by Dr. Michael Deem, a pro­fes­sor of bio­engi­neer­ing at Rice Uni­ver­si­ty. This re­search rais­es trou­bling sci­en­tif­ic, le­gal and eth­i­cal ques­tions.  Rice of­fers the fol­low­ing state­ment:

  1. Rice had no knowl­edge of this work.

  2. To Rice’s knowl­edge, none of the clin­i­cal work was per­formed in the Unit­ed States.

  3. Re­gard­less of where it was con­duct­ed, this work as de­scribed in press re­ports, vi­o­lates sci­en­tif­ic con­duct guide­lines and is in­con­sis­tent with eth­i­cal norms of the sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ty and Rice Uni­ver­si­ty.

  4. We have be­gun a full in­ves­ti­ga­tion of Dr. Deem’s in­volve­ment in this re­search.

And two founders of CRISPR were al­so quick to note their own prob­lems with the Chi­na em­bryo project.

The Broad In­sti­tute’s Feng Zhang, a co-in­ven­tor of the tech­nol­o­gy, had this to say:

Al­though I ap­pre­ci­ate the glob­al threat posed by HIV, at this stage, the risks of edit­ing em­bryos to knock out CCR5 seem to out­weigh the po­ten­tial ben­e­fits, not to men­tion that knock­ing out of CCR5 will like­ly ren­der a per­son much more sus­cep­ti­ble for West Nile Virus. Just as im­por­tant, there are al­ready com­mon and high­ly-ef­fec­tive meth­ods to pre­vent trans­mis­sion of HIV from a par­ent to an un­born child.

Giv­en the cur­rent ear­ly state of genome edit­ing tech­nol­o­gy, I’m in fa­vor of a mora­to­ri­um on im­plan­ta­tion of edit­ed em­bryos, which seems to be the in­ten­tion of the CCR5 tri­al, un­til we have come up with a thought­ful set of safe­ty re­quire­ments first.

Not on­ly do I see this as risky, but I am al­so deeply con­cerned about the lack of trans­paren­cy sur­round­ing this tri­al.


Im­age: Jiankui He. THE HE LAB via YOUTUBE

Qual­i­ty Con­trol in Cell and Gene Ther­a­py – What’s Re­al­ly at Stake?

In early 2021, Bluebird Bio was forced to suspend clinical trials of its gene therapy for sickle cell disease after two patients in the trial developed cancer. As company scientists rushed to assess whether there was any causal link between the therapy and the cancer cases, Bluebird’s stock value plummeted – as did those of multiple other biopharma companies developing similar therapies.

While investigations concluded that the gene therapy was unlikely to have caused cancer, investors and the public may be more skittish regarding the safety of gene and cell therapies after this episode. This recent example highlights how delicate the fields of cell and gene therapy remain today, even as they show great promise.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) (Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA/Sipa via AP Images)

Sen­a­tors to NIH: Do more to pro­tect US bio­med­ical re­search from for­eign in­flu­ence

Although Thursday’s Senate health committee hearing was focused on how foreign countries and adversaries might be trying to steal or negatively influence biomedical research in the US, the only country mentioned by the senators and expert witnesses was China.

Committee chair Patty Murray (D-WA) made clear in her opening remarks that the US cannot “let the few instances of bad actors” overshadow the hard work of the many immigrant researchers in the US, many of which have won Nobel prizes for their work. But she also said, “There is more the NIH can be doing here.”

Covid-19 man­u­fac­tur­ing roundup: Mary­land looks to grow biotech ca­pac­i­ty with $400M check; Rus­sia lands sec­ond Sput­nik V part­ner this week

A Maryland real estate project has added three new biotech-focused manufacturing and research buildings to an office park to keep up with demand created by the pandemic, the Washington Business Journal reported.

The Milestone Business Park — located off of I-270 in Germantown, MD — will see the new buildings and a total of 532,000 square feet as the campus rebrands to Milestone Innovation Park.

Law pro­fes­sors call for FDA to dis­close all safe­ty and ef­fi­ca­cy da­ta for drugs

Back in early 2018 when Scott Gottlieb led the FDA, there was a moment when the agency seemed poised to release redacted complete response letters and other previously undisclosed data. But that initiative never gained steam.

Now, a growing chorus of researchers are finding that a dearth of public data on clinical trials and pharmaceuticals means industry and the FDA cannot be held accountable, two law professors from Yale and New York University write in an article published Wednesday in the California Law Review.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Novavax CEO Stanley Erck at the White House in 2020 (Andrew Harnik, AP Images)

As fears mount over J&J and As­traZeneca, No­vavax en­ters a shaky spot­light

As concerns rise around the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines, global attention is increasingly turning to the little, 33-year-old, productless, bankruptcy-flirting biotech that could: Novavax.

In the now 16-month race to develop and deploy Covid-19 vaccines, Novavax has at times seemed like the pandemic’s most unsuspecting frontrunner and at times like an overhyped also-ran. Although they started the pandemic with only enough cash to last 6 months, they leveraged old connections and believers into $2 billion and emerged last summer with data experts said surpassed Pfizer and Moderna. They unveiled plans to quickly scale to 2 billion doses. Then they couldn’t even make enough material to run their US trial and watched four other companies beat them to the finish line.

FDA of­fers scathing re­view of Emer­gent plan­t's san­i­tary con­di­tions, em­ploy­ee train­ing af­ter halt­ing pro­duc­tion

The FDA wrapped up its inspection of Emergent’s troubled vaccine manufacturing plant in Baltimore on Tuesday, after halting production there on Monday. By Wednesday morning, the agency already released a series of scathing observations on the cross contamination, sanitary issues and lack of staff training that caused the contract manufacturer to dispose of millions of AstraZeneca and J&J vaccine doses.

Brad Bolzon (Versant)

Ver­sant pulls the wraps off of near­ly $1B in 3 new funds out to build the next fleet of biotech star­tups. And this new gen­er­a­tion is built for speed

Brad Bolzon has an apology to offer by way of introducing a set of 3 new funds that together pack a $950 million wallop in new biotech creation and growth.

“I want to apologize,” says the Versant chairman and managing partner, laughing a little in the intro, “that we don’t have anything fancy or flashy to tell you about our new fund. Same team, around the same amount of capital, same investment strategy. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

But then there’s the flip side, where everything has changed. Or at least speeded into a relative blur. Here’s Bolzon:

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Jenny Rooke (Genoa Ventures)

Ear­ly Zymer­gen in­vestor Jen­ny Rooke re­flects on 'chimeras' in biotech, what it takes to spot a $500M gem

When Jenny Rooke first heard of Zymergen back in 2014, she knew she was looking at something different and exciting. The Emeryville, CA biotech held the promise of blending biology and technology to solve a huge unmet need for cost-effective chemicals — of all things — and a stellar founding team to boot.

But back then, West Coast venture capitalists didn’t see in Zymergen the one thing they were looking for in a winning biotech: therapeutic potential. Rooke, however, saw an opportunity and made her bets. Seven years later, that bet is paying off in a big way.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 107,400+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Saurabh Saha at Endpoints News' #BIO19

On the heels of $250M launch, Centes­sa barges ahead with an IPO to fu­el its 10-in-1 Medicxi pipeline

Francesco De Rubertis made no secret of IPO plans for Centessa, his 10-in-1 legacy play. Barely two months later, the S-1 is in.

The hot-off-the-press filing depicts the same grand vision that the longtime VC touted when he did the rounds in February: Take the asset-centric mindset that he’s been preaching at Medicxi over the years, and roll up a bunch of biotech upstarts, with unrelated risk profiles, into 1 pharma company that can carry on the development at scale.